Which of the Expansion Civs do you look forward to most?

[stethnorun]

Ok sending you a message showing you wrong. But won't post about it anymore on the forums, apparently its against the rules to talk about infractions.

And anyways I don't understand whats hard to read about my post haha... I split the post into 2 sections, one regarding our earlier discussion. The other regarding the discussion on the Zulu. And I often post statistics, historical documents, etc. in my posts. Not sure where you are going with this

Okay I stand corrected, we both got infractions. So I was wrong about that.

It may be that you post stats for stuff I haven't been interested in, but everytime I've interacted with you, you make wild assumptions based on very little or nothing. You are flat out wrong about the Native American thing (and of course you would HAVE to be, because you are making an absolute statement). Anyway, moving on...

[stethnorun]

You are either joking, trolling, or I have been giving you credit for being far more intelligent than you actually are.

No, I'm not joking. I took that b.s. anthropology course too, where the 28 year old female socialist liberal teacher tried to bash us over the head with the idea that every culture and society is equally wonderful. As you can see, it didn't take.

[Kukulcán]

Okay I stand corrected, we both got infractions. So I was wrong about that.

It may be that you post stats for stuff I haven't been interested in, but everytime I've interacted with you, you make wild assumptions based on very little or nothing. You are flat out wrong about the Native American thing (and of course you would HAVE to be, because you are making an absolute statement). Anyway, moving on...

That the theory has been widely discredited is an absolute statement?

[PachaMinnie]

The Zulu, for example, are a discrete culture. That's fine. They are even entitled to prefer their primitive lifestyle to our modern one. But to describe them as a "civilisation" does nothing except make that word meaningless. You could as easily describe an ant colony as a civilisation.

China and India and Egypt and Persia etc etc are all ancient and honourable civilisations. But they deserve to be included because they are civilisations, not to "represent". The fetish of representation can only be fulfilled by elevating spear-chuckers like the Zulu.

What's funny is the Zulus where not "Spear Chuckers". That is, unless you are willing to call the Romans "Pila Chuckers". Shaka got rid of throwing spears almost completely and replaced it with a short spear used for stabbing. Did the Zulu still use throwing spears in battle? Yes, much like the Romans, they would throw their spears then advance. What was so genius about their throwing spears is that when they are thrown they break when they hit their target. Ever heard the term "Do not throw the arrow that will return against you?". These band of "Spear Chuckers" beat so many armies that either where A] Bigger than them, or B] Way more advanced than them.

Let us say this, instead of the Zulu being born sometime around 1600 A.D. lets bring them back to the, oh I don't know, 500 B.C.. They would change the world. They are only brought down because they where very late-bloomers. Shaka was indeed a true military genius, there is no denying that, and they shaped South Africa more than most.

Do the Zulu have a culture? Yes they have a culture, 11 million speakers of IsiZulu, which is amazing for a Tribe that was brought down by Euro powers, they have their own clothing, religion, language, what more do you want? Do you want damn painting on massive Cathedrals honoring their great gods? These are people who where founded in the 1600s and only had a brief kingdom of about 70 some odd years. Yet during this small amount of time, they revolutionized the way of war for the Bantu tribes, fought the British, Boers, and other Nguni tribes in the area winning many battles, created their own culture that is still alive and well today, what more do you want?

[Kukulcán]

Okay I stand corrected, we both got infractions. So I was wrong about that.

It may be that you post stats for stuff I haven't been interested in, but everytime I've interacted with you, you make wild assumptions based on very little or nothing. You are flat out wrong about the Native American thing (and of course you would HAVE to be, because you are making an absolute statement). Anyway, moving on...

Yea I admit I got angered by your posts when I was infracted because you were degrading in a sense my ancestors. And when people in the past have used this very theory against my family in Guatemala does annoy me. My father (full blood Kaqchikel) had to deal with a ton of flack. My Grandfather who served in the Guatemalan army for quite a while same. And both have told me about actual experiences where this Theory was actually used for Propaganda against our people. They both come from villages in the countryside and still have experiences from the army propaganda and early school propaganda and the unversities.

=====

Because there is a holdout or two. Doesn't mean it is a widely accepted theory.

[stethnorun]

What's funny is the Zulus where not "Spear Chuckers". That is, unless you are willing to call the Romans "Pila Chuckers". Shaka got rid of throwing spears almost completely and replaced it with a short spear used for stabbing. Did the Zulu still use throwing spears in battle? Yes, much like the Romans, they would throw their spears then advance. What was so genius about their throwing spears is that when they are thrown they break when they hit their target. Ever heard the term "Do not throw the arrow that will return against you?". These band of "Spear Chuckers" beat so many armies that either where A] Bigger than them, or B] Way more advanced than them.

Let us say this, instead of the Zulu being born sometime around 1600 A.D. lets bring them back to the, oh I don't know, 500 B.C.. They would change the world. They are only brought down because they where very late-bloomers. Shaka was indeed a true military genius, there is no denying that, and they shaped South Africa more than most.

Do the Zulu have a culture? Yes they have a culture, 11 million speakers of IsiZulu, which is amazing for a Tribe that was brought down by Euro powers, they have their own clothing, religion, language, what more do you want? Do you want damn painting on massive Cathedrals honoring their great gods? These are people who where founded in the 1600s and only had a brief kingdom of about 70 some odd years. Yet during this small amount of time, they revolutionized the way of war for the Bantu tribes, fought the British, Boers, and other Nguni tribes in the area winning many battles, created their own culture that is still alive and well today, what more do you want?

Having said all of that, put them up against China, India, Egypt and Persia. How do they fare?

[stethnorun]

Yea I admit I got angered by your posts when I was infracted because you were degrading in a sense my ancestors. And when people in the past have used this very theory against my family in Guatemala does annoy me. My father (full blood Kaqchikel) had to deal with a ton of flack. My Grandfather who served in the Guatemalan army for quite a while same. And both have told me about actual experiences where this Theory was actually used for Propaganda against our people. They both come from villages in the countryside and still have experiences from the army propaganda and early school propaganda and the unversities.

=====

Because there is a holdout or two. Doesn't mean it is a widely accepted theory.

Alright, so now you have approximated the number of people that don't agree with to 1 or 2. Amazing. You're just refusing to understand my main point. False consensus theory - look it up. It describes you to a T.

[Kukulcán]

Having said all of that, put them up against China, India, Egypt and Persia. How do they fare?

Not well. They are an interesting people and while I like to joke about them they will get in eventually. Its just there are many other Civs out there that could and perhaps should get in before the Zulu. They had their areas of influence, but many other areas of influence across the globe are currently not represented either. I would rather a newcomer have its share of history/influence than seeing the Zulu again.

[Kukulcán]

Alright, so now you have approximated the number of people that don't agree with to 1 or 2. Amazing. You're just refusing to understand my main point. False consensus theory - look it up. It describes you to a T.

Oh come on don't try to pull that crap. Historians, anthropologists have denounced this theory for years. Jared Diamond, Maragaret Mead, etc. To say that the majority of people believe in this is disengenious. It is widely disregarded everywhere. Its not like its just my belief

[Shiav]

No, I'm not joking. I took that b.s. anthropology course too, where the 28 year old female socialist liberal teacher tried to bash us over the head with the idea that every culture and society is equally wonderful. As you can see, it didn't take.

Well then I am truly saddened. If people who claim to be intelligent can't see the benefits of diversity then how can the rest of your country?

[PachaMinnie]

Having said all of that, put them up against China, India, Egypt and Persia. How do they fare?

That is unfair. Egypt, China, Persia, and India never had to face the British Empire at its highest point. I mean China would've never fared much better than the Zulu if they where placed in between two enemies with superior technology, plus a whole bunch of warmongering tribes who wanted nothing but revenge. My god, they where a tributary until 1816, then look what they became in 70 years!

[Shiav]

That is unfair. Egypt, China, Persia, and India never had to face the British Empire at its highest point. I mean China would've never fared much better than the Zulu if they where placed in between two enemies with superior technology, plus a whole bunch of warmongering tribes who wanted nothing but revenge. My god, they where a tributary until 1816, then look what they became in 70 years!

A breath wasted is a moment lost.

And China in the 19th century got it's ass easily kicked by the Brits in two years. India was dominated by them for over a hundred. The Persians in the 19th century were divided between Russian and British influence. The Egyptians went from Ottoman to British hands.

[Kukulcán]

And come on when of all possible groups the EJDR announces the death of Noble Savage Theory and how few remaining of pockets of it survive it should give you a hint Steth. And this is the EJDR too lol.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...426726#preview

[stethnorun]

Well then I am truly saddened. If people who claim to be intelligent can't see the benefits of diversity then how can the rest of your country?

There are benefits to diversity, sure. But should I respect a culture where thieves have their hands chopped off and blasphemers have their heads chopped off? Because if I take a stand against that culture, I am, by definition going against cultural relativism.

[stethnorun]

That is unfair. Egypt, China, Persia, and India never had to face the British Empire at its highest point. I mean China would've never fared much better than the Zulu if they where placed in between two enemies with superior technology, plus a whole bunch of warmongering tribes who wanted nothing but revenge. My god, they where a tributary until 1816, then look what they became in 70 years!

Sorry, I didn't know history was supposed to be fair. Have to appeal to the refs, I guess

[Shiav]

There are benefits to diversity, sure. But should I respect a culture where thieves have their hands chopped off and blasphemers have their heads chopped off? Because if I take a stand against that culture, I am, by definition going against cultural relativism.

Reductio ad absurdum, Steth? I thought we were better friends than that. Obviously extremists from both the hippie side and the racist side have terribly skewed opinions, but ethnocentrism is still the underlying belief that your culture is inherently better than all others. And at no point in time will that ever be true of any culture. Writing up and down is no less effective than writing left to right.

Sorry, I didn't know history was supposed to be fair. Have to appeal to the refs, I guess

Pretty sure we can red card the Brits, using tactical advantages to further enhance their tactical advantage.

[stethnorun]

And come on when of all possible groups the EJDR announces the death of Noble Savage Theory and how few remaining of pockets of it survive it should give you a hint Steth. And this is the EJDR too lol.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...426726#preview

This does nothing to tell me that the idea of the peaceful hippy Native American isn't still taught to kids in elementary school and junior high. Just because some professor in academia says it's dead doesn't mean it actually is. Have you worked in schools? Because I have. Sure, it may be on the wane, but it's still very common. And given how increasingly politically correct our culture is becoming, I don't expect the textbooks to tell the gory details any time soon.

[Kukulcán]

Reductio ad absurdum, Steth? I thought we were better friends than that. Obviously extremists from both the hippie side and the racist side have terribly skewed opinions, but ethnocentrism is still the underlying belief that your culture is inherently better than all others. And at no point in time will that ever be true of any culture. Writing up and down is no less effective than writing left to right.

Ad Hominem is the most common thing steth has lol I personally like hearing other people's opinions. But its a problem when someone tries to promote a theory that has been used for racism and subjugation as a widely accepted theory when its simply not true. And Steth probably will never admit that, just watch.

[stethnorun]

Reductio ad absurdum, Steth? I thought we were better friends than that. Obviously extremists from both the hippie side and the racist side have terribly skewed opinions, but ethnocentrism is still the underlying belief that your culture is inherently better than all others. And at no point in time will that ever be true of any culture. Writing up and down is no less effective than writing left to right.

Well, I will detail further: I'm not a nationalist. I don't believe the USA will always be right because that's where I live. When we are right, we are right, and when we are wrong (which is more and more common these days), we are wrong. It just so happens that we are right way more often than most of the rest of the world, and when compared to certain areas (certain theocratic states) we are ALWAYS right (or at least, more right).

[stethnorun]

Ad Hominem is the most common thing steth has lol I personally like hearing other people's opinions. But its a problem when someone tries to promote a theory that has been used for racism and subjugation as a widely accepted theory when its simply not true. And Steth probably will never admit that, just watch.

Try looking up the latin before you use it. I never said anything about you personally, other than that you use false consensus theory to back up your points, which is factually true, as we've seen.

[Kukulcán]

This does nothing to tell me that the idea of the peaceful hippy Native American isn't still taught to kids in elementary school and junior high. Just because some professor in academia says it's dead doesn't mean it actually is. Have you worked in schools? Because I have. Sure, it may be on the wane, but it's still very common. And given how increasingly politically correct our culture is becoming, I don't expect the textbooks to tell the gory details any time soon.

Well I can tell you I have a textbook from my Junior year in High School with pictures of lynchings and paintings of the dead and mangled on the trail of tears. And that was in North Carolina of all places where I could say the majority of the school was Republicans etc. And when I have gone elsewhere I can't say it is a theory I hear argued. Perhaps because I am an IB kid, but I simply don't hear it.

I think you underestimate what a lot of the country knows/show/etc outside of small pockets of isolation. If you read the paper it provides statistics on textbooks, high school and college surveys, etc. showing that the theory is both no longer accepted by students and profs.

[PachaMinnie]

A breath wasted is a moment lost.

And China in the 19th century got it's ass easily kicked by the Brits in two years. India was dominated by them for over a hundred. The Persians in the 19th century were divided between Russian and British influence. The Egyptians went from Ottoman to British hands.

Forgive me, what I meant was this: If China, India etc. where founded in their same place, but with their neighbors being two very technologically superior neighbors, it wouldn't have been nice. India, China etc. where given time to advance their civilization. The Zulu weren't given this thousand year advantage. Their armies where similar to classical armies but they where in the industrial era. They faced an army with Gatling guns, cannons, and bolt action rifles and almost won.

[Kukulcán]

Try looking up the latin before you use it. I never said anything about you personally, other than that you use false consensus theory to back up your points, which is factually true, as we've seen.

Factually true? How because people must still believe in something even after I pointed out other historains/anthropologists on extreme ends.

Mead for example a major women's rights activist and died in the 70s. And even then she was calling for the end of the teaching. And then Diamond a highly respected historian/anthropologist today which many teachers use for readings. And those are just a few. You want more historians/antrhopologists?

I will give you more.

If you can't accept it. Thats your choice. But even then I wouldn't call you out on doing probably the very thing you are telling me about.

[Kukulcán]

And let me just remind you the EJDR study and paper was from 1999.

Declaring the end of a theory then doesn't mean its on the wane. It was on the wane prior, but now its but near extinction.

[Shiav]

Well, I will detail further: I'm not a nationalist. I don't believe the USA will always be right because that's where I live. When we are right, we are right, and when we are wrong (which is more and more common these days), we are wrong. It just so happens that we are right way more often than most of the rest of the world, and when compared to certain areas (certain theocratic states) we are ALWAYS right (or at least, more right).

That, that actually kind of is the definition of nationalism right there. You can tell yourself that if it weren't your home you'd still believe it, but you're just lying.

So let's compare the US to the Vatican (which you want to do) in the Vatican's circumstances. How do you unite dozens of warring kingdoms and fiefdoms on a continent that has been stuck in the dark ages for six hundred years? American foreign policy of the early twentieth century was that of non interventionism and isolationism. So they would do nothing and let the states battle it out. What happening next being pure speculation, would this non-interventionism have led to the cultural revival and renaissance of the 14th and 15th century? Well one of the causes of said renaissance was an influx of ideas from the middle east and their eastern trading partners. These ideas were brought in after the crusades. Would isolationism have caused the same influx of ideas? Debatable, but most likely not. If European states were not expressly told to send large numbers of people, ships and traders to the middle east, had the Knights Templar not been built to revolutionize the international monetary system for the express purpose of said crusades, then Europe might not have undergone the dramatic shifts and growths it did of the 15th and 16th centuries and beyond.

Thus, in the case of how to revive a continent that is fractured and torn, the theocratic Vatican's foreign policy makes more sense than American foreign policy. I needn't tell you how well isolationism faired, as the 30's and 40's speak for themselves.

Forgive me, what I meant was this: If China, India etc. where founded in their same place, but with their neighbors being two very technologically superior neighbors, it wouldn't have been nice. India, China etc. where given time to advance their civilization. The Zulu weren't given this thousand year advantage. Their armies where similar to classical armies but they where in the industrial era. That is why they should be in, they faced an army with Gatling guns, cannons, and bolt action rifles and almost won. They shaped South Africa more than most nations , etc. already mentioned this.

Trying to substitute nations into the situation of others doesn't really work well, as it's pure speculation. Note that this almost completely destroys what I just wrote. If you're going to speculate at least admit it. Though by the same argument that the Iroquois are in, the Zulu almost fit. It's that they didn't have the whole democracy thing like the Iroquois.

[stethnorun]

Factually true? How because people must still believe in something even after I pointed out other historains/anthropologists on extreme ends.

Mead for example a major women's rights activist and died in the 70s. And even then she was calling for the end of the teaching. And then Diamond a highly respected historian/anthropologist today which many teachers use for readings. And those are just a few. You want more historians/antrhopologists?

I will give you more.

If you can't accept it. Thats your choice. But even then I wouldn't call you out on doing probably the very thing you are telling me about.

I don't accept it because I saw it with my own eyes 5 years ago, as well as having been taught it myself when I went to school. Can't get much better evidence than that.

[PachaMinnie]

Sorry, I didn't know history was supposed to be fair. Have to appeal to the refs, I guess

History isn't fair, but you are acting like both nations existed for the same amounts of time and that both had equal opportunities to do what they did. The Zulu kingdom was walled off from the day it was born, its only option to survive was war. You comparing India, China etc. to the Zulu is an unfair comparision. Yes I will admit all of those nation that you mentioned have done more than the Zulu *gasp* but they where given time to grow and develop. Not the Zulu, instead of comparing them with the greats of history look at what they did. Tributary 1816 and military power by 1878 that in 1879 beat the British armies on many occasions? Impressive.

[Shiav]

I don't accept it because I saw it with my own eyes 5 years ago, as well as having been taught it myself when I went to school. Can't get much better evidence than that.

By your own admittance, one case study (or two) can't be representative of an entire population. Perhaps Maryland's education system is behind that of others? Perhaps your teacher was a bleeding heart?

[stethnorun]

You really think that bleeding hearts are a minority in the education system? Really?

[PachaMinnie]

Trying to substitute nations into the situation of others doesn't really work well, as it's pure speculation. Note that this almost completely destroys what I just wrote. If you're going to speculate at least admit it. Though by the same argument that the Iroquois are in, the Zulu almost fit. It's that they didn't have the whole democracy thing like the Iroquois.

Yes, I am speculating. I thought I made that somewhat clear, forgive me if I didn't.

[Kukulcán]

I don't accept it because I saw it with my own eyes 5 years ago, as well as having been taught it myself when I went to school. Can't get much better evidence than that.

You can't accept a wide array of pop in the sample for the study. (Regarding the article link I posted prior) Various universities including Comm Colleges were included. The theory was no longer taught in almost any of them. I feel sorry then for you then if your teacher did teach you that. But my sister is going through high school now and she tells me at the same school they still teach history. It may be NC but you hear about violence from both ends no matter how gruesome. (Like the picture of Irish surrounding a body as a trophy) Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it is the norm. Just because you believe it is to be true, doesn't mean you can discredit without any proper evidence that the theory is too commonly held.

Again I prefer first hand experience, history, and statistics to back up my statements.

[JFD]

I'm sure someone with a wider historical vocabulary than I could name a number of civs which have done similarily to the Zulus. Nepal comes to mind. Britain eventually won both wars, but not before devastating defeats. Naturally I expect the Zulu, but only because of its continuation in the series.

[Shiav]

You really think that bleeding hearts are a minority in the education system? Really?

No, I think that every single teacher on the planet is a different person with there own world view and their own identity shaped by their own circumstances. And neither my wife nor mother could ever be accused of being a bleeding heart.

[Shiav]

I'm sure someone with a wider historical vocabulary than I could name a number of civs which have done similarily to the Zulus. Nepal comes to mind. Britain eventually won both wars, but not before devastating defeats. Naturally I expect the Zulu, but only because of its continuation in the series.

Iroquois, Zulu, Nepal, Mysore, Hurons, come directly to mind. Of nations defeated by the British using superior technology and tactics the list is almost limitless.

[JFD]

There we have it. If we were to believe that the only reason the Zulu are worthy are because they overcame a greater foe, then there are plenty of worthy civs. Thus, the Zulu have every right as the rest of them to be in the game, at least in so far as there are few major powers left.

[stethnorun]

No, I think that every single teacher on the planet is a different person with there own world view and their own identity shaped by their own circumstances. And neither my wife nor mother could ever be accused of being a bleeding heart.

Hah...the Cylons were more accurate about human beings. There's really only 12 of us.

[JFD]

So let's compare the US to the Vatican (which you want to do) in the Vatican's circumstances.

At least the Papal States were open about their supposed ordination by God.

[PachaMinnie]

I'm sure someone with a wider historical vocabulary than I could name a number of civs which have done similarily to the Zulus. Nepal comes to mind. Britain eventually won both wars, but not before devastating defeats. Naturally I expect the Zulu, but only because of its continuation in the series.

Yes, many have done what the Zulu did.The Zulu are not unique, but they do have a nice tale. If they where added then they would be the only representation of the Bantu culture group. Unless civilizations like Kongo where added, but I don't see this happening. I would like it to happen, but I don't see it happening.

And yes, representation matters in Civilization. This isn't a history book, this is a damn game. I would like to have the option to play as many Civilizations [though not as many as 50, that begins to push it.] not just the chosen few [Rome China India etc.].

Also I am not putting the Zulu ahead of any other nations, I would welcome all of the nations that could be listed by any historical expert. I am only arguing on the behalf of the Zulu.

[Shiav]

Life would be so much easier if they just had the base civs then did what GalCiv II did. That'd easily cut out half of all discussions on the forum.

[JFD]

Personally, it would be fun to have the Zulus. But those reasons are inappropriate in a gaming context. Sure they represent an ethinicity from an unrepresented area, but I don't think representation should come at the cost of entertainment. I'm not saying the Zulu would necessarily facilitate this cost, but I'm not convinced the Zulu would add anything groundbreaking to the lineup. But I could be wrong.